AC rfp-responder
Use when an RFP, RFI, RFQ, security questionnaire, vendor questionnaire, or proposal request arrives and the team needs a structured response — parsing multi-section buyer-dictated requirements (MANDATORY vs WEIGHTED vs NICE-TO-HAVE), building a Shipley-method proof-point matrix mapping each requirement to a verifiable proof point, articulating 3-5 win-themes that ladder up across requirements, and producing a Shipley-derived winrate estimate that informs a bid / no-bid / partner-bid recommendation. For Bid Managers, Proposal Leads, Directors of Sales, and Sales Engineers at the response-strategy moment. Surfaces GAP requirements explicitly — never invents claims. NOT free-form proposal narrative authoring, NOT contract redline, NOT marketing collateral.
Use when an RFP, RFI, RFQ, security questionnaire, vendor questionnaire, or proposal request arrives and the team needs a structured response — parsing…
As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/shipley_method_canon.md:62Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)7. **Larry Newman, "The Shipley Method"** — the methodology articulation that anchors *Proposal Guide v6*. Defines the 7-step proposal-development process (kickoff → blue team → pink team → red team →
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "compatible_tools"
Process rating: all ten parameters 54/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 48 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2948 tokens
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 764: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 48 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +3All 3 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 95.